usenet weirdness

So will a really bad one.

But the effect confirms relativity.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

An atomic clock lattice array actually detects physical hand-waving about it and basically makes for an imaging system due the effects of the interactions of matter alone.

This suggests a real effect of "space-contraction" instead of gravitational/acceleration "time-dilation", about that space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational are each real and two different things, while space-contraction is one thing, not length-contraction and time-dilation apart.

So, an atomic clock lattice array can serve as a detector of the hand-waving.

Does this mean the light-speed-limit is actually ignored by space-contraction-linear and that "frames" in the usual account are space-frames and frame-spaces? Is it so that the "apparent super-luminal motion" from the sky survey really is so?

Yes, it does.

Does it "violate relativity"? No, it's just another way of looking at it. Relativity is just "think of the theory where motion is always relative, not absolute", about that the "coordinate-free" settings are because they all have coordinate settings. Does it result "infinite energy" for matter to be Galilean linearly? No, it doesn't, and light is just constantly flowing away. Does it make an account matching why the solar system holds together since the force of gravity must always point at the source where it really is not the image that's delayed by light speed? Yes, it does.

There are any number of ways to "confirm relativity", since by itself it's just a formalism, and, for example, "optical illusions" "confirm relativity". It's loose language to say that the scientific theory is ever confirmed, only that it's not falsified in the face of alternatives.

The usual "Relativity Theory" is pretty much "motion, ..., is relative", then there's attached "and there's an L-principle of the constancy of the speed of light and otherwise it's classically mechanical in the limit", that's what it says, or as Einstein puts it, when he asks, "what's the use of just such a negative stipulation that motion isn't absolute?", that then he answers as making a great account for coordinates and these kinds of things.

Then, most people don't necessarily think that if motion, ..., is relative, then for that: "space, ..., is relative". I.e., in otherwise a theory of absolutes, or the cosmological principle that the laws of the universe its physics are the same everywhere, then fits the idea that besides "frames" the usual notion of local settings, local coordinate settings that the usual Relativity Theory has, "frames" like "frames of a motion picture", which was new in those days, those representing instantaneous snapshots of things providing a perception of motion, then there's that "frame-spaces" and "space-frames", making for that it's a sort of, "Double-Relativity Theory", then that this goes well for usual accounts of after atomic and nuclear theory that "matter is mostly space".

It's creating problems now, but the ones that people notice are mostly extreme weather, and people aren't all that sensitive the fact that there's more extreme weather around than there used to be.

Educated people worry more, but you don't seem to have much to do with them.

You think that time dilation doesn't happen? That's simple ignorance.

The stupid scum here is you. "What do clock really indicate" is just the first line in well rehearsed theatrical performance that you seem to enjoy putting on, even though you don't understand a word of it

They aren't correcting them for "error" - they are adjusting them to cope with a known, predictable and calculable physical effect which you don't seem to be able to understand, and prefer to remain ignorant about.

The only one I know of that is that good is the Mossbauer effect

It is an odd sort of clock.

But Maciej Woźniak can't understand how it works.

That's not actually how the Mossbauer effect works.

As if Maciej Woźniak had any grasp of basic math.

What Maciej Woźniak can't understand he calls delusional.

Chanting "whoever disagree with me and my idiot guru is a simple ignorant" won't help the fact that in the meantime in the real world real clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like they always did. Sorry, poor stupid scum.

Fortunately, even such a disgusting piece of lying s*it as you are can't lie non stop, so sometimes you admit they are.

The difference between "time dilation" and "a clock error" is simple and hard to misinterpret: you don't correct your dilation idiocy, but you do correct error. Sorry, poor stupid scum.

But that's how The S*it of Einstein works. Actually, asserting that a really, really, really good plane wouldn't fly at all (because that's what some "laws of nature" are demanding from a really good plane) would be at the same level of idiocy.

Maciej Woźniak has - as usual - snipped most of what I posted. I've put it back below

A bit rich rich coming from a habitual text chopper who evades any question for which he hasn't a neat prepackaged answer, usually by snipping the question down to one to which he thinks he has got an answer.

??? looks like a garbled popularisation. Do you have a serious source for this?

What I do know is that serious attempts were made in the thirties to demonstrate simulated emission in neon gas discharges. (so verifying Einstein's B coefficiet) IIRC the experiments were difficult, and the results not conclusive. (would have to search)

Jan

Chemistry has also engineers.

I had interest in chemistry in my younger age and owned a laboratory in our basement.

We have a system in Germany, where students of the higher classes in the school called 'Gymnasium' (has nothing to do with 'gym' in English) could select topics they liked and what they were good at.

Mine were math and chemistry.

Or when I read your stuff...

No, because also large sections of the perimeter walls were falling down, each in the regions of several ten tons.

If such a lump of steel and concrete would crash upon the WTC-Plaza with more then 300 km/h, it would punch a hole into the floor-level with the size of a tennis court and deep enough, that you could see the rock below Manhattan.

But that didn't happen.

Instead the street level was mainly undamaged. (e.g. you can identify cars and trucks in the rubble, which are hardly damaged.)

This is the point I wanted to show and that is why there must have been unusual effects in operation.

One possible explanation would be 'cold fusion'.

Another were weapons in space, that have kind of laser, which can make skyscrapers disappear.

Sure, it took much longer that ten seconds.

But a free falling piece of - say- concrete would need roughly ten seconds to fall down from the top of a WTC-tower.

So, where did the delay come from?

TH

For a laser to work, it has to host a population excited atoms or molecules, where there are more atoms or molecules in the excited high energy state than in the ground state - an inverted population. Such a population is thermodynamically unstable and decays to the non-inverted state, usually pretty rapidly. Einstein didn't happen to think of any way you could get an inverted population, but others were luckier.

They needed a different point of view.

It is not a clock at all, it is a frequency standard,

Jan

Maciej Woźniak has convinced himself of this. He hasn't convinced any actual physicists, hasn't presented any actual arguments that might have worked on them, and seems to think that his simple assertion is all the proof he needs.

It's a physical effect, rather than any kind of "error". And he doesn't tell us how the "error" might have arisen.

That's how it looks to Maciej Woźniak. He's wrong, but he has convinced himself that he isn't, and doesn't realise quite how stupid this makes him look.

Perhaps a little hypocritical. Carrying on about the imagined superiority of your own insight and calling your critic "poor scum" doesn't suggest that the "sorry" is all that sincere.

So, if "Relativity Theory" makes accounts of Lorentzians that then make all "predictions" of Relativity Theory, then what would be the next "Double Relativity Theory" its usual formalisms or expressions then about the relevant implicits and formulations that make the algebras for the formalisms?

Various ideas include, for example, just using the third differential instead of the second differentials in the Laplacian cum Lorentzian, another to square it terms, either way making simple accounts of either making the initial terms of Maclaurin/Taylor series or making another account of quadrature for the triangle inequality.

If "Relativity Theory" is so great for what it is, "no absolute, ..., motion", now "Double Relativity Theory" with "no absolute, ..., motion, and no absolute, ..., space", is greater.

That's how it looks to Bill Sloman. He's wrong, but he has convinced himself that he isn't, and doesn't realise quite how stupid this makes him look. Fortunately, he is too dumb to keep his lies consistent and sometimes he admits it's an error.

It doesn't say anything about Einstein's possible imaginings either. Neither does it say anything about 'secondary emission' which is an entirely different phenomenon. Summary: irrelevant.

For perspective: Einstein derived stimulated emission

Einstein deriving his coefficints nevertheles was a masterpiece of thermodynamics based on statistical mechanics.

Yes. All blaming of Einstein for not inventing the laser is hogwash. There just was no basis for it at the time. All you might 'blame' him for is not returning to the subject after quantum mechanics became a settled subject, (which he was fed up with, by then)

Jan